Why Are Pit Bulls Banned? How Media Hysteria Created Stupid Laws
"This idea that aggression can be traced back to specific breeds is the folklore of a criminal subculture. This is not an idea that exists in science."
That's Janis Bradley, one of the country's premier experts on canine cognition, dismantling the idea at the heart of laws banning pit bulls, a dog breed that has become synonymous with violence, mayhem, and attacks on humans.
Hundreds of counties, cities, and towns single out pit bulls for special attention and treatment, from outright bans on owning them to empowering law enforcement to extract dogs from non-compliant homes. But when we look past media scare stories and focus on how dogs are raised and handled, it turns out that pit bulls are not uniquely aggressive and dangerous, even as governments across the country are codifying scientifically illiterate prejudice into law.
About 5 minutes.
Produced by Rob Montz, who also hosts. Camera by Joshua Swain and Alexis Garcia. Graphics by Jason Keisling.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I had to kill it. It was going for my throat!
/jackboot
I was given an "Uncontrollable, vicious, and crazy" Doberman by a friend who always left the dog at home by itself. After a few months of regular contact with people it became a tame and adorable companion that loved to ride in my car and was a genuine sweetheart.
The only problem was that it loved to be petted and always wanted to sleep in bed with me. My girlfriends did not appreciate that. Besides that, it became very protective of me and being a female, was jealous of human females.
I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I've been doing
http://www.jobs-check.com
Pit Bulls are like the Four Loko of dogs. "Nobody wants to ban a man's best friends, but because these particular types are more dangerous, we HAVE to do something about it!"
\mediaderp
Oh, and I forgot one thing: the same kinds of bureaucrats and progressives that want to stop you from owning a pit bull because they're "savage" are the same ones that vilify and stigmatize people who make "racially" (SJW)-insensitive remarks. Who would've thunk?!
You have a bit of a false-equivalence going on there.
Certain animal breeds are selectively bred for certain characteristics; no so humans.
The dissonance is still evident to me even considering that some dogs are selectively bred. Not that I would do so, but if I wasn't able to breed a pit bull to fight with it, what's stopping me from doing the same thing with a Doberman or a German shepherd? Singling out pit bulls still uses the same logic as singling out a racial group.
Local government ordinances aside, property management companies enforce increasingly long breed-ban lists. In my building, I can't have any bully breed, nor can I have a GSD, Doberman, Mastiff, Rottweiler, Boxer, etc. or anything over 50 pounds. It's ridiculous and one of the reasons I'm not going to re-up my lease in five months.
I have no personal experience with your issue, but just on principle I realize that "bully breed" is just vague enough that it can be used to bully every dog owner into investigations, pun intended.
Insurance companies are also a culprit here. I own my home and was required to pay increased premiums because we own a large-breed dog (Siberian Husky).
Catatafish said:
Bully for you!
What is a GSD?
Agreed but in partial defense of Zenome, at its heart this is a nature/nurture debate. If you are a believer in the "nurture" side of the argument (as I do) you are left with no rationale for banning the dog other than 1) you think your tenants are cruel and disgusting people that are involved in dogfighting or narcotics distribution, or 2) the dog just "looks" dangerous. If you believe the first, maybe the answer is don't lease to those prospective tenants. If you believe the second, you're just a moron.
I generally think that unless proven otherwise with a document or having lived with it, I tend to lean towards the "nurture" side of the debate. I understand Sevo's point very well, but if I thought that all dangerous dogs were bred to be that way, my logical conclusions would shift right to statism very quickly. Hence why all of the property management regulations you list above exist in the first place.
As a landlord, i can attest to the fact that poorly trained dogs damage rental properties. Large, heavy poorly trained dogs do alot of damage. They can disturb other tenants from enjoying the property. And usually a bad dog is owned by scumbag tenants. I know people love their pets, but it is increasingly more difficult for me to allow them in my properties.
I'm also a landlord and won't rent to dogs... the floors enter into it but it's mainly because of the noise (the rental is behind our house). Prove to me that the dog won't bark at every other stupid dog or human walking by and I'd be open to it. As it is the neighbor's dogs make enough noise.
Even walking to the corner is running a gauntlet of dogs running up to their fence and letting loose with blood thirsty fury. Pisses me the fuck off. I'm just walking on the sidewalk, minding my own business, I shouldn't get screamed at in my ear by fucking dogs.
/rant
So sexual selection isn't a thing in humans?
The ATTS (American Temperament Test Society) lists the Pit Bull as the #2 most tolerant dog breed only behind the Golden Retriever. http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/
My Pit (a mix but mostly Pit) is the sweetest dog we have ever owned.
"A 2009 study in the Journal of Forensic Science ($$), found that the owners of vicious dogs, regardless of the breed, had "significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners." The researchers added that "vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy," and concluded that "vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance." And according to the ASPCA, "Pit Bulls often attract the worst kind of dog owners." http://www.alternet.org/civil-.....urned-them
Got that off another site, didn't pay for the link to the Journal.
Sounds a lot like guns. Criminals use guns criminally, law abiding citizens use them lawfully (for the most part)
Yeah, same here. I had a pit for 16 years, and finally had to have the old girl put down once she began suffering. Such a sweet, calm, and obedient dog; she never would've bitten anyone. Yet I had a lot of trouble finding apartments that would allow me to keep her.
The idea that pit bulls are hard wired to be vicious toward people is like a modern day Reefer Madness, fueled by a sensationalist media preying on ignorance and gullibility. They have been bred to be disposed toward animal aggression, but whether or not a particular dog exhibits such a characteristic cannot be at all determined merely by establishing that it is a member of a certain breed.
Using a gun analogy
A pit bull is like a 12 ga loaded with OO buckshot, while your average dog bite is no worse than rock salt. While it may not be more likely to fire, OO is more often lethal when you do.
1) Will have to watch the viddy after work.
2) I do not want to ban any dog breed. After an attack, an owner must take responsibility.
3) I understand that how a dog was raised/trained is probably the largest factor in how it will react to certain situations.
4) I am curious if the video will make clear why aggression in pit bulls haven't been bred into the them. Other breeds have tendencies toward other traits that were used for a reasons on wanting that particular breed, ie retrieving, herding, good in the water....
It is my understanding that pit bulls were bred to be fighters and there for aggression would be a desirable trait.
They were bred to fight other dogs, but since they had to be in the pit with a human handler, pits that were bred to fight had a very high aversion against aggression toward humans. Old time dog fighters had to put GSDs or Dobies in their kennel runs to keep their pit bulls from being stolen because they would go off with just anybody. And the dogs had certain characteristics such as speed, power, agility, endurance and tenaciousness that made them good for fighting, but the actual aggression always had to be trained into them.
Old time dog fighters had to put GSDs or Dobies in their kennel
Ah. Why not labs, golden retrievers and basset hounds?
WTF is a GSD?
But when they do bite, their speed power and tenaciousness make them much more lethal than your average dog. I'd bet your average chihuahua is more likely to bite someone, but the consequences are very different.
The snag in this line of thought is that many homeowners insurers charge extra or won't write policies for homeowners with supposedly more dangerous breeds.
Insurers have solid claims history for each breed, so in a free and competitive marketplace, the most logical explanation for them singling out certain breeds is that owners of some breeds have statistically higher claims.
It could be that the owners of the singled out breeds are just statistically worse at keeping their pets from biting people. Maybe the worst dog owners all gravitate to certain breeds. But IMO even if it's not the dogs themselves, there's at least a correlation linking owners of certain breeds to a higher likelihood of their pet biting someone.
Pit Bulls are actually very sociable and used to be among the most popular breeds in America, primarily for companionship. In fact, unless neglected, or desocialized, they don't make good guard dogs, they'd rather play.
Oops... wrong post. But to reply to this OP, the problem is in reporting. The Media is very lax in it's standards of reporting dog attacks. They rarely report the breed, unless it's one of those "Bad Breeds": Pit Bulls, Rottweillers, Dobermans, etc.
AKAIK, insurers don't rely on media reports to set rates. They analyze their own claims data. The fact that they've targeted owners of certain breeds for higher premiums strongly suggests a correlation between the targeted breeds and higher claims payouts.
It's similar to what happened with trampolines. At first insurers didn't care if you had a trampolines at your house. Now many insurers charge a higher premium if you have one. Apparently, claims experience taught them that houses with trampolines are more expensive to insure than houses without them.
Old data I saw actually said that Cocker Spaniels and Chihuahuas were the two breeds with the highest incidence of serious dog bites.
The insurance rate increase is in how bad the incidence is in talking about a PB vs. a CS.
Basically, Cocker spaniels are a lot less likely to result in death, but more likely to require stitches.
A pit bull or rottie is a lot more capable of truly serious damage, even though their likelihood is a lot less.
That sounds quite likely. Pit bulls biting adult humans actually seems pretty rare (in my limited experience), but when they do bite another dog, they tend to cause quite a bit more damage than other breeds.
I was an insurance agent from 1981 - 1997 and remember when insurance companies first started communicating new underwriting guidelines for homeowners insurance policies regarding certain dog breeds. I also remember hearing (but don't know if it was true) that the breed most responsible for biting humans was the Cocker Spaniel.
A friend of mine has a Great Dane and an English Mastiff, both known to be very sweet breeds -- but on the "not allowed" list by many insurance companies.
I may be submitting to stereotypes, but I think you're on to something about the worst dog owners gravitating to certain breeds. I've observed this several times over the years, most often for Pit Bull dogs, as well as Rottweilers. Our local animal shelter always has more pit and pit mix dogs than any other type, which suggests owners are not getting their animals spayed or neutered. Labs are still one of the most popular breeds in the USA, yet they are not as plentiful in the shelters as pit/pit mixes.
The presence of Pits in the pounds could also be related to more owners giving them up upon an incident of aggression. Any such incident could scare a potential owner and make them realize the liability they have by owning such a dog.
The bad owner theory is correct. Particularly in certain cities like Philadelphia, where pitbulls are used for muggings in order to avoid the firearm add on charge if they are caught.
I may be submitting to stereotypes, but I think you're on to something about the worst dog owners gravitating to certain breeds.
I saw a study (too lazy to find again) which found that 90% of people with unlicensed (qualifier) pit-bulls or rotties had criminal records.
Most dog breeds have been historically bred for specific tasks. They are ruled buy instinct. A Pit can be raised to be a loving pet as can a Golden. The problem is that when a Golden acts on instinct it fetches you a stick. When a Pit operates on instinct it bites someone or something. Due to generations of being bred for fighting to the death in a dog fighting pit ( hence the name) they are very good at it and have jaws that are massively strong. I have seen a Pit locked on to another dog and refuse to let go even as it was being beaten with a stick. I suppose you could raise a Golden to be a fighting dog but it simply is incapable of the jaw strength of a Pit. I don't think you could possibly train a Golden to lock down it's jaw and refuse to let go regardless of what was happening to it. A Golden has been bred for generations to not bite down hard on what it has in it's mouth, sans food.
You can raise a Pit to be a loving dog but when something triggers that dog instinctively it is a very efficient killing machine. Some years ago in Hempstead, Texas a Pit killed two next door neighbor kids. They had played with this dog since it was a puppy. A Golden is incapable of doing that.
The owner of the dog is very important but there are some behavioral instincts that can't be tamped down by one generation of being treated as a family pet. Refusing to be aware of that and claiming that Pits are just like Collies is silly.
Bogus.
Bullshit. A Golden can kill small kids if it is inclined to do so.
Barney the Purple Dinosaur could kill small kids if he was inclined to do so. But he doesn't because he's not inclined to do so. Neither are golden retrievers.
Here's some pitbull stats: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php
Find me a single example of a retriever killing a person.
Not only that, but the number of other dogs killed by pit-bulls is huge. There was a puppy killed in a park near me by a pit-bull just a few months ago. Grabbed it's throat, went crazy .. dead puppy. Very sad. While I know of several such instances with pit bulls I am not aware of a single instance of a retriever, or a poodle (for example) killing another dog. Are there aggressive labs? Definitely. Is that lab likely to attack another dog to the point of death? Very very unlikely and I've never heard of such a thing ever. Personality generalizations DO apply to breeds and to pretend they do not is just to blatantly ignore reality.
My roommate's Husky killed his wife's Pekingese. Woo-hoo, anecdotes!
I've met a pug that killed four Pekingese in a single afternoon. One of them nipped one of the Pug's puppies.
When it comes to Pekingese, I look at this as a feature, not a bug.
I've looked after over 50 foster dogs, many of which are pit bull mixes, but ya you're the expert ...
You've had over 50 troubled dogs, so you're an expert on the non-troubled ones...
Yes they are all troubled dogs and so yes I have quite a bit of experience with troubled dogs and yes I'm comparing troubled bully breeds with troubled non bully breeds. I'm not claiming pit bulls can't be wonderful dogs. They can be amazingly loyal and loving and playful. Not all the pit-bull mixes I've looked after were a problem, only some of them.
I'm claiming dog breeds can have (statistically) innate traits, just like retrievers do, border collies do, huskies do, poodles do, and so on. No one has a problem generalizing these other breeds. If you see a fairly pure husky, or border collie, or lab, you can predict a lot about his behavior just from knowing that. It won't necessary be 100% correct all the time. There is room for personality differences for sure, but to pretend that all generalizations are invalid is to ignore the evidence right in front of you. Generalization DO apply. Not 'absolutely' and 100% uniformly, but statistically, yes there are some things you can say about a dog just from it's breed that is very likely to be true.
And what are a string of anecdotes ?
A pattern.
Barney the Purple Dinosaur could kill small kids if he was inclined to do so. But he doesn't because he's not inclined to do so. Neither are golden retrievers.
Here's some pitbull stats: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php
Find me a single example of a retriever killing a person.
Give me a golden pup and let me raise it like an asshole and you'll have some dead kids. See, here the thing: ASSHOLES WHO LIKE DOGFIGHTS DON'T BUY GOLDENS.
"ASSHOLES WHO LIKE DOGFIGHTS DON'T BUY GOLDENS."
True statement I suppose.
Yet not all of the owner's of Pits who have killed children or other dogs are assholes.
I know that for a fact as a friend's son's Pit killed the friend's little dog over a bowl of dog food. My friend's son never dreamed his lovingly raised family pet Pit would ever kill anything like those Pit's raised by assholes. But it did.
Dogs are wild animals with a veneer of domestication over their instinctual behaviors. A thicker veneer than anyother animal that I can think of offhand ,but an animal none the less.
When my wife is oohhing and aahhing over one of her two cats I always remind her that if they were just a little bigger they would eat us.during the night when they are running and playing cat stalking games.
Not only do Pits have generations of being bred to fight to the death, they have the breeding traits to be very good at it, much more so than Goldens or most other dogs. You could train a Pit to field trial retreving I suppose but it could never be as efficient at it as a Golden. If it were you would probably have seen them win some field trial championships.
Dogs are pack animals also and they are very consious of their status in the pack. That is one reason that dogs that kill, seldom kill their own owner but are more likely to kill a child or neighbor.
"ASSHOLES WHO LIKE DOGFIGHTS DON'T BUY GOLDENS."
Since they aren't bred to be as good at it as Pits I don't blame them.
Pitbulls are capable of killing, and inclined toward violence relative to other dogs. To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. It is an animal that is bred to kill in the same way that retrievers are bred to fetch and hounds are bred to track.
The fact that you own or once met a nice pitbull does not change this fact. Moreover, the fact that a pitbull does not currently have a murder record does not mean that it will continue to be a friendly dog. The owners of such animals are nearly always surprised when something triggers the dog to attack.
Exactly. It's just blatantly ignoring reality to not acknowledge this. Pit bulls are great dogs that are extremely loyal and loving towards their family, but they 'can' also very dangerous when it comes to other dogs. No one has a problem generalizing the personality of retrievers or border collies or poodles, but suddenly when it comes to generalizing pit bulls they lose track of reality based on some sort of ideological leanings. I've looked after over 50 foster dogs. Dogs that have been abused, and neglected. A significant fraction of these dogs are pit-bull mixes. Initially I have to watch them VERY closely around other dogs and immediately jump in to break up a fight and show my extreme displeasure with their actions. This is just the reality of pit-bulls and pit-bull mixes.
These comments about "pit bulls" being "bred to kill" or whatever are below even imbecilic. While there are undoubtedly exceptions, the majority of dogs in the US are bred to be fucking pets and have been so for decades, at least. It is just plain evil. Dogs are domesticated wolves. Either you can breed out their wildness or you can't. The idea that the vicious nature of some breeds has been eradicated but not others is moronic.
So dogs can be bred to fetch, bred to herd, bred to sheppard and protect, bred to guard, but 'bred to fight other dogs' ... ya that totally imbecilic and impossible! 😉
"The idea that the vicious nature of some breeds has been eradicated but not others is moronic."
Sure use the straw-man absolute i.e. dogs equal wolves because there is a minuscule chance they will be viscous like a wolf. Completely vicious or completely passive are the only choices. No middle ground what-so-ever.
Statically some breeds are MORE vicious that others. Ignore reality all you want.
Fuck, you're dense. That's not what Marshall said AT ALL.
"Either you can breed out their wildness or you can't."
i.e. no middle ground.
"The idea that the vicious nature of some breeds has been eradicated but not others is moronic."
i.e. because no breed is 100% passive, all breeds are equivalent.
While there are undoubtedly exceptions...
Ha! Yes, undoubtedly... here's a few that happened to have occurred in front of a camera: http://www.dogsbite.org/danger.....videos.php
Either you can breed out their wildness or you can't.
Agreed... I'm going with choice (a), "you can breed out the violence". As with retrievers, labs, border collies, etc. Or, you can cultivate the violence, as with pitbulls.
The idea that the vicious nature of some breeds has been eradicated but not others is moronic.
So you deny that breeders can select for certain characteristics? You seem not to understand sexual reproduction and heredity very well.
So you deny that breeders can select for certain characteristics?
Science H. Logic. I specifically point out that for decades the majority of "pit bulls" have not been bred for a "vicious nature" but to be someone's pet. Why is it that viciousness can be bred into their nature but not fucking out of it?
I know, I know, cause their mean and scary! It's like logic and stuff.
I've owned a lot of dogs over the years, but especially dogs that are good at being either herders or guardians (completely different jobs) because I live on a ranch.
I have one guardian dog currently that's a mix that may have a little pit bull in him, among other things. I was keeping my friend's pitbull and his GSD for a while, because the air base they lived at changed their policies to not allow "dangerous" dogs. Both these dogs are the biggest sweethearts ever, though.
My guardian mutt is *very* dominant and aggressive, even though he's neutered. One day the pit bull was climbing all over my daughters, playing with them, and he took it wrong. They got into a horrific fight. I was barely able to get them separated without one of them getting seriously injured. After that, they were very touchy with each other and anything could set off a fight. I had to keep them separated. The problem was that neither of them knew when to quit. Their fighting instincts kicked in.
Meanwhile, I have a border collie/lab herd dog. He can totally out-think the guardian dog, but the first time the guardian dog started a dominance fight, he crouched down in immediate submission, and the conflict was over almost as soon as it started. The guardian dog just wanted to establish who was boss.
Some breeds just don't have that fight in them. Others do. I've never encouraged the guardian dog to fight, or to be aggressive with other dogs -- I actively discourage it, but it's hardwired in for him.
Negroes are capable of killing, and inclined toward violence relative to other humans. To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. It is an race that is bred to kill in the same way that Jews are bred to do finance and Italians are bred to make pizza.
The fact that you own or once met a nice Negro does not change this fact. Moreover, the fact that a Negro does not currently have a murder record does not mean that it will continue to be a friendly person. The case workers of such people are nearly always surprised when something triggers the Negro to attack.
So because people ARE NOT bred for specific tasks, dogs CAN NOT be breed for specific tasks? Logic much?
Retrievers, border collies, german sheppards, poodles, chihuahuas, wolf are exactly equivalent. No statistically generalizations can be applied, ever, because that would equivalent to racism. Nice ... You should write for Huff Po.
You're off the rails here Old Man. Drawing an equivalence between human behavior and canine is silly.
Dogs can absolutely be selected for aggressiveness. The Russian experiment with foxes is evidence enough of that.
I personally recommend the Dogo Argentino as an alternative to the pitbull because they have been selected for non aggressiveness towards other dogs.
You don't know what you're talking about. Pitbull fights are not to the death. The dogs are separated if one gives an indication that it no longer wants to fight by turning tail. They are then faced off and if it does not run at the other one, the fight is over.
They are not in an actual pit, it's a pen with walls a couple feet high. The handlers of each dog and a ref are in the pit with the dogs while they are fighting. The need to be in close proximity to them and pull them apart while they are fighting means that a human aggressive pitbull is a huge liability. Because of this, pitbulls that display human aggression are killed or not bred causing them to have some of the lowest levels of human aggression out of any breed.
The problem is that dog fighting was driven underground and then embraced by violent assholes who don't care about proper breeding protocols. There has also been a large increase in legal dog breeders creating pit mixes for protection work that are bred and trained specifically for human aggression.
That said, pitbulls have a tendency to 'turn on' after a year or two and suddenly become very animal aggressive. People need to be aware of this, looking out for it, and prepared for what to do. If it's a family pet, it should be extensively socialized from a young age. If it displays human aggression not in defense of the owner, kill it.
Dog fights are absurdly boring. It's shitty sport and now full of shitty people. The dogs are awesome though.
The problem is that dog fighting was driven underground and then embraced by violent assholes who don't care about proper breeding protocols.
It was such a classy "sport" before the violent assholes took over. I'm going to say there are more problems with dog fighting than just that. For instance people who find gratification in watching animals suffer.
Prostitution is such a classy "profession" before the violent assholes took over. I'm going to say there are more problems with prostitution than just that. For instance people who find gratification in watching women suffer.
Do you agree with this too?
For instance people who find gratification in watching women suffer.
I have never watched two prostitutes fight, it is arousing? Do people bet on it? But seriously, are you actually analogizing dog fighting and prostitution? Who watches prostitution?
Some people claim that prostitution necessarily entails the suffering of women, such that anyone involved must enjoy the suffering of women. I disagree.
I don't believe that dog fighting necessarily entails the suffering of dogs either. I certainly don't "find gratification in watching animals suffer." As I alluded to in my post, I don't even find pitbull fights entertaining or enjoyable. The meta-game of breeding and training them is fascinating to me though.
What is your opinion on japanese dog fighting? They don't even allow biting. It's basically dog wrestling. Or what about hunting? Do you think hunters get off on animal suffering?
I would appreciate it if you would stop with the intellectually dishonest responses.
"I don't believe that dog fighting necessarily entails the suffering of dogs either."
Powder Puff dog fights?
What will they think of next ?
Who watches prostitution?
It's called porn.
When I said they have been historically bred to fight to the death I wasn't referring to a litter of puppies bred by Michael Vick. I was clear that I was referencing specific breed traits that all purebred dogs have and tend to pass on to their offspring when they are the predominate breed in the mix.
The word historical has a meaning you know.
Jack London seemed to know dog fighting in an different age than you.
I know absolutely nothing about modern day dog fighting and am proud of it. The problem isn't that dogfighting was driven underground. The problem is that it existed at all and that there are still some assholes who still attend them.
I was describing the most common form of historical and modern dog fighting... Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
I bet you think Roman gladiators regularly fought each other to the death too. I read it in a book, it must be true!
Anyone involved in dog fighting is a sadistic piece of shit.
I bet those dogs just love being ripped to shit by each other before some kind and benevolent dogfighting tough guy pulls them apart so they will learn nothing but love and affection for all humanity.
There are many ways for someone who loves the "mega game" of dog breeding to enjoy it without breeding fighting dogs.
Pit bull breeds were never bred for fighting. They were originally bred for enthusiasm, loyalty, stamina, and strength.
Nonsense. Citations for this supposed jaw strength, or give it up.
My friends Golden Retriever attacked my friend's baby when it became jealous. It bit her in the face.
The owner of the dog is very important but there are some behavioral instincts that can't be tamped down by one generation of being treated as a family pet.
Totally agree.
Of course, pits have innumerable generations of being treated and bred as family pets. That dog Spanky in Our Gang? Pit bull. The RCA Victor dog? Pit bull. Look at very many family photos from way back in the day, and you're going to see lots of pits.
During the height of the Great Pitbull Scare, my wife (at the time) worked as a reporter for an LA-area daily. One of the other reporters was assigned to do an article about the horrors of the breed and since we owned one, she came by our house with a photographer to get a pic for the story. It took over an hour because every time the photographer aimed his camera, the dog would put her tail between her legs and run away.
Eventually, the reporter and I ended up holding the dog still while the photog snapped some shots. We were cropped out of the pic, so what you saw illustrating the article was our sweet, shy, and frightened dog looking like a fierce predator, with her ears back and the beginning of what looked like a snarl (it was actually a whimper).
I learned a lot about the media in those days. And that pit was the sweetest, nicest, and most loyal dog I've ever had.
"And that pit was the sweetest, nicest, and most loyal dog I've ever had."
Indeed they usually are all these things. You might even say this is a 'generalization' of the breed...
the "Great Pitbull Scare"...ahh the Nickie G school of lightweight writing
I am not yet convinced.
The breed standard is nebulous, covering a few different breeds, and has become more so as dog fighting became illegal and these dogs were put to other work, encouraging other traits. I think this explains, beyond human socialization, why one may be fine and another hyper-aggressive.
Retrievers are bred to retrieve, hound dogs are bred to hound, pit bulls were bred to fight to the death in a pit. I don't think it is yet far enough removed from that to throw caution to the winds of the politics of correctness, or even liberty.
Cautious
Somebody gave my dad a pit when I was a little kid. Sumbitch chewed the siding off our house. Ate the chord off the lawn mower and bit through the main line to our AC unit. After all that my dad decided to give it away. When he went to put the leash on him like he had dozens of times before, the dog attacked him. It had never attacked anybody or any other animal before that.
Dogs tend to imitate the personalities of the owners.
My dogs always sniffed the pussies of female humans.
"This idea that aggression can be traced back to specific breeds is the folklore of a criminal subculture. This is not an idea that exists in science."
Maybe, but as someone who had looked after over 50 foster dogs over the years I can tell you that when pit bulls and pit-bull mixes attack another dog it almost always means a trip to the vet. I don't fear for my own safety and while I've been bit dozens of times it is mostly from when I get in-between two dogs fighting to break it up (they are kind of indiscriminate at that point).
Many dogs breeds are bred for a purpose. If you think that the personality of a poodle is the same as a border collie, is the same as a retriever, is the same as a pit-bull, then you don't know shit about dogs. Generalizations DO apply. Many have been bred for a specific purpose and have corresponding personalities. If a pit bull attacks another dog, that dogs life is in serious danger. End of story.
Many have been bred for a specific purpose and have corresponding personalities.
Aren't pits bred for fighting? That would explain a lot.
I honestly don't know the history of the breed and am only going by my real-life, actual experience with them. They can be very loyal and loving and playful, but they go too far when showing displeasure with another dog.
This whole "breed doesn't matter" thing is false. It is scientifically proven that Chihuahuas are the most vicious little vermin alive and will attack and pee on sight. Not necessarily in that order.
It would help if people were capable of admitting they don't know sweet FA about dog breeds.
Things Hamster Has Actually Heard:
"Black lab!" Reality - Collie/Husky mix.
"Pit bull!" Reality - Old English bulldog.
"Jack Russell!" Reality - Blue Heeler/Boxer mix. Weighed 70+. What. The . Fuck.
My dog, a little 17 lbs puggle, loves meeting other dogs. Every time I walk him, he makes a point of trying to sniff ass and make buddies with every dog that he passes (and there are a lot of dogs in my area). One dog breed that he generally gets along with well is pitbulls.
However, last night I was walking him to the dog poop area in Pershing Square and there was a girl walking her Pit. He saw the pit and wanted to go up and be friends. As per usual, I told the Pit's owner that he was friendly and she said her pup was too. My dog goes up and does the usual butt sniff and then all of a sudden the Pit snaps at my dog. I yank my dog back behind me while the Pit is barking at him and stand immediately between the dogs (my dog will throw down with a Pit in that circumstance and get torn to shreds, so I know to get between), looming over the pit and giving him a nasty look that says I aint afraid.
That's all fine and good. Sometimes two dogs who were at first friendly get a bad vibe with one another. The problem was that the Pit's owner, a woman, gently pets her dog and says in the softest tone "relax, it's ok." I wanted to tell her that that's not how you raise a fucking dog (the Pit was still a pup with growing left to do) and that when your dog snaps at another dog you have to be forceful and disciplinarian.
Pits can be the friendliest breed, but they need a human that knows how to train them and reign in their instincts
Keep our dog safe, Sudden.
I do a lot of traveling for work now, and find myself having to have my sister or friends watch him for a few days at a time. If you ever wanna have him around for a couple of days, you let me know.
I will need him back though, so don't let the wife and kids fall too much in love with him.
You have my word as a gentleman.
In that case nevermind.
Seems like a lot of people get Pit Bulls (and plenty of other breeds) out of pure vanity regardless of whether the owner can actually take care of the animal.
Come and try to take my sweet doggies away and you will see what aggressive dangerous behaviour looks like before you see my dogs
The term "pit bull" covers several breeds of dogs, and is mostly meaningless. A a lot of problem dogs are referred to as pit bulls when reporters or police have no idea what a dog's breed actually is, giving them a reputation far worse than they deserve.
http://i55.tinypic.com/281yiv8.jpg
I've been around dogs a lot, as obviously most people have, my entire life and owned my fair share of the critters.
The dogs that I am most apprehensive around are Rottweilers. My daughter has one and he's the biggest baby I've ever seen, and he's huge, but totally non-intimidating, like an overgrown puppy. But I have been around more Rottweilers than any other breed that I would not turn my back on for a second. Chows are also a breed to not turn your back on unless they are really familiar with you. I know more people who have been bitten by them than any other breed. I had one and he was sweet as could be with us and the children, but you couldn't trust him to not attack a stranger, I just had to get rid of him because I couldn't trust him not to bite someone. He bit my brother for seemingly no reason, just out of nowhere.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to ban any breed of dogs, the owner is responsible, just talking about my experience with dogs.
Chows are also a breed to not turn your back on unless they are really familiar with you. I know more people who have been bitten by them than any other breed.
My childhood pet was a Chow. They are the sweetest family dogs and loyal as all hell. But they are very protective of their family. If they feel that someone is threatening their family, they will go balls out defending to the death. And that results in a lot of unintended biting as they can't always determine who's friend and who's foe when you have people over.
Balls out is a terrible way to go into a fight.
Agreed. In my experience Rottweilers can be very vicious towards other dogs (my own dog being bit and needing stitches in one completely unprovoked instance in a park) and unlike put bulls, Rottweilers are huge and definitely more scary as a result.
The Serbian breeder that we got our Shepard from said that of all the breeds, the most dangerous was the Rottweiler. This from a guy who trained guard dogs and Schutzhunds for a living.
I don't know how close modern Rottweilers are to the historical norm but they were originally bred by the Romans as herding and guard dogs. The one I had as a kid was a sweetheart, but he loved killing small furry things.
The Serbian breeder that we got our Shepard from said that of all the breeds, the most dangerous was the Rottweiler. This from a guy who trained guard dogs and Schutzhunds for a living.
I don't know how close modern Rottweilers are to the historical norm but they were originally bred by the Romans as herding and guard dogs. The one I had as a kid was a sweetheart, but he loved killing small furry things.
One-eyed dogs are the worst.
Why don't we just make owners liable for their dogs' actions and outlaw animal cruelty?
Oh, that is already the law? Well damn.
Just to play devil's advocate here. Why outlaw animal cruelty? From a libertarian perspective, animals are just property and you can do to your property whatever the hell you want. Right?
Except let the violate the NAp against others or their property .
One problem is that the sterotyype Pit owner isn't usually one with homeowners insurance.
And homeowners insurance can't bring back a neighbor's dead kid or dog.
This simply isn't true. Yes, pit bulls can be gentle and sweet, and yes much of their temperament can be attributed directly to their training. However, the problem with pit bulls is that they rarely given any warning. They don't growl; they simply attack, and you don't know when it's coming so you can't get away to prevent it. And any of them can do it, regardless of how well trained. I won't have anything to do with them, and don't have a problem with banning them from apartment buildings and other public places.
Horseshit. You seem to know a lot about a dog you refuse to have anything to do with.
When my pits have been unhappy, they act like any dog. You get plenty of warning.
Exactly. This was on par with the comment above, attesting to the amazing jaw strength of pitbulls relative to other dogs. Banning shit because of anecdotes and ignorance is a big reason why we now live in a nanny state.
OneOut,
Yes, but until they do this (kill another dog or child) you have no right to restrict them (from a purely libertarian perspective). From a libertarian perspective, you can't restrict someone based on something that 'might' happen.
It's like if your neighbor is making large quantities of nitro-glycerine in his house. Hey it's his house. He can do whatever the hell he wants, right? From a libertarian perspective, 'risk' of outcome is irrelevant. Your neighbor is only causing a problem IF his house blows up and kills you and your family. Before that he his perfectly within his right to do whatever he wants - NAP.
Again just devil's advocate as I'm curious how libertarianism addresses such things.
By sticking it up your ass if possible.
up to I looked at the draft which had said $5079 , I didn't believe that...my... friends brother had been actually receiving money part time from their computer. . there aunt has been doing this 4 only about 23 months and at present repaid the dept on their home and got a great BMW M3 . hop over to this web-site http://www.Post-Report.Com
A lot of comments here remind me of people discussing drugs on Breitbart.
"They SAY marijuana never killed anyone, but my brother's aunt's second cousin, twice removed, knew a guy who smoked so much that it shut down his kidneys...."
That sounds possible- to an uneducated great-grandmother.
my neighbor's mother makes $86 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for 8 months but last month her check was $12427 just working on the internet for a few hours. see it here..............
????? http://www.netjob70.com
Any breed can be mistreated and be influenced with negative behavior. Singling out a breed it just wrong. Not only that, it is just a sign of ignorance and arrogance. It is the owners responsibility to provide the proper training for any breed, and it is also their responsibility to understand and research to make sure that they find the right dog for them. How active are you going to be, walking, ect. How often are you home? Are you willing to sacrifice your free time to provide the right amount of care for your dog? Are you willing to spend x amount of money for your dogs' needs, being food, vet, ect. Being a spieciest is about as bad as being a racist or a sexist and most, if not all human beings are bad about it. Don't know what the word means? Look it up. They suffer just as much as a human being and hardly anyone takes that into consideration.
Pitbulls are not naturally meant to be fighting dogs, their bite isn't as strong as it is claimed to be. German Shepherds and Rotties have stronger bites than the Pit breed. Honestly, one of the most aggressive breeds Chihuahua's.
It makes me so angry that humans are being so absurdly bias over a breed of a dog. It is the exact same thing as being a racist or a sexist, or being spiteful about the LGBT group. How would you feel if someone hated you because of the individual you were? How would YOU feel if you were told you couldn't live in this area or that area because of your nationality/ethnicity or gender?
At this point in time, most prejudice against pit bulls doesn't have anything to do with media hype as much as the breed's popularity amongst the urban poor. Just like backyard chickens, any amount of rational argument isn't going to overcome the fact that they tend to be owned by the "wrong" type of people.
no not really
I encountered a stray pit bull while out walking. It pawed and jumped all over me, but didn't try to eat me alive, for which I suppose I should be grateful. Seriously, it was very friendly, but I wasn't able to detain it for the authorities. I hope it's doing OK.
lucky you
Remember how the St. Patrick's Day parade organizers let a gay veterans' group into their parade? That part is true.
Remember how the organizers changed longstanding policy to let the gay group Boston Pride march? Well, that's a bit of a half-truth.
"Our ban was against any political signage that was political, explicitly sexual or anti-American in nature, and that distracted, detracted or disagreed with the twin themes of our celebration ? America's first military victory [British evacuation of Boston, 1776], all veterans and military, as well as the hardships of Irish immigrants and their struggle for religious freedom.
"The Council cited previous bans against the Ku Klux Klan, Pro-life, anti busing and Irish Northern Aid as evidence of policy. Just last year, the Council was the recipient of the last hate mail of the Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Kansas Baptist Church, who demanded entrance to our parade. The Rev. has since passed on....
"On Feb. 6, an application from the "New Boston Pride Committee was received describing their unit as a social organization with volunteers of Irish descent, who wish to march in the parade. We will carry American and Irish flags. We wish to have a car to carry older marchers unable to walk the whole route".
"That was it. It was innocently believed upon receiving it that they were an offshoot of "Boston Strong" and so they were sent a letter of acceptance by the parade organizer. Any report that the Council voted on or even saw the application is either a misquote or complete fabrication....
"It was shocking and unauthorized...when [Boston Pride] appeared at "G" and Broadway carrying 10-12 multicolored umbrellas that I would describe as rainbow even though I have been told they 'technically' were not rainbows. Well, how's this ? umbrellas of any sort are not allowed. We can all play word games but again we're running a celebratory event not a protest or social movement. In any event we review tapes of the parade for improvements and violations and will take action where appropriate."
http://southbostontoday.com/re.....in-review/
Why is it that if a bunch of gays want to march together it's automatically a "protest or social movement"? How is it any different from the rotary club marching together?
Oh, and rainbows are political?!
Obviously it's not automatically considered political, since the gay veterans were in the march.
And if they ban prolifers and busing opponents, maybe this isn't simply a case of OMG right-wing reactionaries hating teh Gayz!!! Maybe it's a case of trying to avoid distraction from the purpose of the parade.
They don't want marchers to have "political, explicitly sexual or anti-American" signs - even if - and here's where the activists and the media get their panties in a bunch - even if the signs are in favor of some cause beloved by the Left.
"Oh, and rainbows are political?!"
Of course not, who would dare suggest such a thing? And donkeys aren't political, either, nor are elephants.
And hammers and sickles are just tools, no political meaning is intended!
I have no problem with that. I just fail to see how a group of gay vets is a "distraction" any more.
And unless there's some gay political party of which I am unaware and is represented by a rainbow flag, I fail to see the equivalence with donkeys and elephants that you're imagining.
So, do you support Whitey Bulger, the Big Dig, Ted Kennedy, or the USS Constitution.? You're a little bit unclear.
Pit Bulls are very loyal dogs, and at the same time very willing to kill anyone of anything that they perceive as a threat to their family. I have never understood why the PB advocates deny this. They even got a study published by the CDC saying that breed was not a factor in serious bites. The study was discredited of course. fatalities from dog bites-
2015- 2 so far, both pit bull attacks
2014- 31 deaths-, 20 by Pit Bulls, 3 by Rottweilers, 2 by BullMastiffs, most others of unknown breed.
every year is like that, until you go back before PBs were common.
I think that Lyme disease kills more than all above.
Unless I see a photo of the dog in question, I don't take the report's word for it that it was a pit.
So there's that.
Pit Bulls get banned because there's a gang-banger element that gets these dogs, not as family pets, but as fashion accessories. They got turned into Status Dogs, which of course gives the dog an unfair rap instead of the owner.
No, I'm pretty sure it was the killing and maiming that got pit bulls their "rap".
Nice history of the breed:
http://www.cesarsway.com/dogbe.....-a-Bad-Rap
Media a bias plays a big role. Many attacks by non-pits are reported as pit attacks, and pit attacks get much wider coverage.
Leaving aside dogs raised by assholes, pits are very people tolerant. Other dogs, not as much, but for all but a very few, some training suffices. Pits have a very long history as companion dogs, saying they are bred to be vicious is simply ignorant.
This idea that aggression can be traced back to specific breeds is the folklore of a criminal subculture.
Wow. What a fucking moron.
This idea that aggression can be traced back to specific breeds is the folklore of a criminal subculture.
Wow. What a fucking moron.
bingo, reason writers are going off the deep end
Speaking of dogshit. I feel as if I should know this already but my memory banks came up empty.
http://www.capoliticalreview.c.....-contract/
Her husband has also done very well indeed in SF real estate, but of course it has nothing to do with her being in various political offices for the last 50 years.
Not at all.
Damn, Kentucky is unreal. They didn't even play well and they still gutted Cincinnati like a fish.
Obama will cross-my-heart really get serious granting more pardons:
"I think what you'll see is not only me exercising that pardon power and clemency power more aggressively for people who meet the criteria -- nonviolent crimes, have served already a long period of time, have shown that they're rehabilitated -- but also we're working with Democrats and Republicans around criminal justice reform issues."
http://www.pardonpower.com/201.....hY.twitter
India: Literally climbing the walls to help kids cheat on exams
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-.....ow_twitter
Well that explains a lot.
"Do not go there. It is a dreadful place."
Hilarious:
https://github.com/letsgetrandy/DICSS/pull/16
Although the fact people like this exist is scary.
I feel like I stepped into the middle of a conversation and am supposed to know what's going on. Can you summarize what started this argument, what the positions are, general argument for and against, then tag which users sit on which side?
Oh, I thought it seemed fairly apparent.
Letsgetrandy is the guy who maintains the project. He injects various bits of humor into the documentation and stuff. The name of the project too obviously.
The people who made the thread don't like his sense of humor and are trying to shame him into changing the stuff.
Should be fairly obvious which side each person is on by reading their comment.
Blah reason's terrible spamfilter won't let me link to a comment directly.
Append this to the above URL: #issuecomment-84133412
Ok that makes WAY more sense. The original link you posted pretty much started with a guy saying "Admit you're wrong!!11!11"
No
Yes
I won't
We'll make you
Nuh uh.
Uh huh
Nuh Uh.
Nuh huh...
Now I get it.
Nobody knows what's going on. That's the whole point.
^What paul said
I don't even know WTF anyone is supposed to be arguing about. Didn't threads used to have 'explanatory subject lines'/ (sadface)
I get it now.
it would seem a minor case study in "how SJWs flashmob things that rub them wrong" (pun intended)
I think the tactics they use of mass-shaming ultimately work against them over the longer-tail. Because it becomes clear that they're a 'vocal minority' rather than any actual reflection of popular opinion. Because most people *dont give a shit*
Um, people don't go to github for dick humor, no matter how clever. I would never download this project because it seems like obvious trolling.
Which would you rather be bitten by: a sweet, lovable pit bull suffering a momentary lapse of character, or an abused, psychotic chihuahua? In you answer chihuahua, then shut up with the "it's all about the owners" and "any dog can be aggressive" bullshit.
Excuse me while I flatulate.
"This idea that aggression can be traced back to specific breeds is the folklore of a criminal subculture. This is not an idea that exists in science."
Strange wording.
Probably because some dogs breeds really are definitely without a doubt more aggressive than others, but a strange offshoot of PC claims otherwise based on the the very false mantra "No, genes never have any influence on behavior".
I kind of sit on the fence on this issue.
I agree with you in general. I don't think Pitbulls are inherently vicious. I do, however, believe that IF vicious, they make for more dangerous dogs.
I once asked someone why, if Pitbulls were exactly like every other breed of dog, why we didn't see Golden retrievers as fighting dogs?
A pitbull owner once described to me, scientifically why pitbulls make superior fighting dogs. They definitely have genetic advantages in build, strength, and ability to clamp down on an appendage and not let go until they're killed.
They can sometimes be like Brock Samson killing Speedy.
"Daniel Freedman was a professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago. For his doctoral thesis, he did adoption studies with dogs. He had noticed that different dog breeds had different personalities, and thought it would be interesting to see if personality was inborn, or if it was somehow caused by the way in which the mother raised her puppies. Totally inborn. Little beagles were irrepressibly friendly. Shetland sheepdogs were most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. Wire-haired terriers were so tough and aggressive that Dan had to wear gloves when playing with puppies that were only three weeks old. Basenjis were aloof and independent.
He decided to try the same thing with human infants of different breeds. Excuse me, different races. ..."
With shocking results. Shocking, I tells ya!
"With shocking results. Shocking, I tells ya!"
Unless you find that it's shocking that oriental kids tend to have black hair, I doubt you'll be shocked by what's in that link.
We're presently at five dogs. (we've had more/others) Our biggest dog - a Lab, wouldn't hurt a flee. you can punch him in the face and step on his feet (uh, I only know this cause...accidents) and he just tries to move away. Typical Lab.
Our most-vicious dog? My papillon/miniature dachshund. She's extremely protective of me, and nips at some people she doesn't know, despite my best efforts.
13 lbs of terror vs 100 lbs of love. But - 13 lbs can't inflict much damage. I avoid anyone else's dogs of any size unless I know them. I just do. Cause - you never know.
And I keep the dachshund/papillon on a short leash!
I have 13 lbs of cat that say otherwise.
heh!
Of course, the difference with cats is that *I* am the one who winds up with blood coursing down my arms during any random encounter with a stranger at my door.
I have 6 kg of TOW missile that disagrees.
I'd rather take my chances with the missile than the cat.
TODAY ONLY : Get Your Own Mac Book Pro With $1000 Visa Gift Card .Get It Here
http://goo.gl/LpNgjp
Where's the part where I make $85/hour with just a few hours a month on the interwebs?? I smell a scam...
How about tomorrow? I'm too bust today.
I grew up having several pit bulls over the years and I would have no problem having one around my son. My ignorant neighbors might shit themselves but I consider that a selling point.
I dunno. I'm pretty sure you can breed dogs for certain behavioral traits, not just size and looks. That's sort of the whole point of dog breeds...
And pitbulls were trained to be aggressive and fight (like German Shepherds or Dobermans). Does that mean they are all vicious murderers? No, but it means when you have crappy owners, they are more likely to be uncontrolled than a dog breed that was bred to say, protect people, like a Newfoundland or Great Pyrenees which was bred to watch sheep.
Try it, the next time you are by a Newfoundland, pretend you are drowning. Chances are he'll try to rescue you, because his instincts tell him to.
Reason writers get stupider by the hour...of course they have been bred that way...dog themselves only exist because of selective breeding...this writer's "science" is some quote from someone who agree's with the writer's bias...
"This idea that aggression can be traced back to specific breeds is the folklore of a criminal subculture. This is not an idea that exists in science."
uh yes it does
This is a good article. I do have some things I would like to add to it. The breed of dog does matter. If a Chihuahua attacks me I can throw it across the room. If a pitbull attacks me then I cannot. Regardless of the breed these are animals. That means no matter how much you love them and how well you take care of them they can snap at anytime. For that reason that's why the breed is an issue. Thanks for reading this.
Stupid laws? Stupid is this article. Who has the right to risk everybody?s pets and kids? Who needs a dog that only knows how to kill? What kind of breed savages guide dogs? Pits are useless dogs and their owners are usually useless people too!